THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING WRITTEN AND SPOKEN ENGLISH (COMMUNICATION)

212 Pages·09.165 MB·English

by  JENKINS, RUSSELL LOWELL

Coyyinht by
bus sell Lovell Jenkins
19512
i
THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TDO METHODS
OF TEACHING WHITTEN AND SPOKEN
ENG LISH (COMMUNICATIOH)
By
Russell Lov/ell Jenkin3
A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fu lfillm en t of the requirements
for the decree of
DCCTOH OF EDUCATION
Department of Education
1951
AC KNOW LEDG MERITS
This study would not havo been possible without the
assistance of a considerable number of persons at Michigan
State C ollege.
The writer is indebted to Professor Paul D. Bagwell,
Head of the Department of Written and Spoken English, for his
cooperation, aid, and assistance in organizing and conducting
tiiis study within his department. To the many members of his
sta ff the writer owes gratitude for assistance in administra­
tion and rating test m aterials. The writer is particularly
indebted to Mr. Conrad Poss, Mr. William Peterson, and Mr.
Meredith Tay/lor for their advice, assistance, and participa­
tion in the instruction of these cla sses.
The writer is indebted to Dr. Paul hressel, Chairman of
the Board of Examiners, and members of his s ta ff who provided
m aterials, test data, and aid in determining the s t a tis tic a l
methods to be used in this study.
To the members of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Clifford
Erickson, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. C ecil M illard, Dr. Guy
H ill, and Dr. Charles Pedroy, the writer expresses apprecia­
tion for guidance and assistan ce.
To his advisor, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, the writer wishes
to express appreciation for suggestions, aid, and guidance
which he has provided.
Dr. C lifford Erickson, Dean of Basic College provided
much inspiration which in itia ted this study and which sparked
many insights into new and challenging philosophies. Prof.
Donald P h illip s, Vice President, H illsdale College, shared
his discussions! procedures and philosophies with the author.
To Dr. Erickson and Prof. P hillips the author wishes to ex­
press gratitude for much of the inspiration which in itiated
this study.
Russell Lov/ell ,Jenkin3
Candidate for the Derree of
Doctor of Education
Final examination, November 26, 1951, 9:50 A.M., 116 Morrill
Hall.
D issertation: i'he Relative E ffectiveness of Two Methods of
Teaching Communication (Written and Spoken
English) at iMichigan State College.
Outline of Scudies
Major subject: Education
Minor subject: Speech R ehabilitation
3iographical Items
Born, November 29, 1910, Peru, Indiana
Undergraduate Studies, Manchester College,
1929-53, B. S. Science
Graduate Studies, University of Wisconsin,
1939-40, Speech
Michigan State College,
1946-51
«
Experience: High School Teaching, 1934-38;
Cont. 1940-42; P hysicist, United
States C iv il Service, 1942-43;
M ilitary Service, United States
Navy, 1943-45; Instructor Written
and Spoken English, Michigan State
College, 1946-1952.
Member of Speech Association of America,
National Society for the Study of
Communication, National Education
Association, American Speech and
Hearing Association, Michigan
Speech A ssociation, (NEA) D ivision
of Audio-Visual Information.
TABLE OF CONTENT
C 'AFTER PAGE
I THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS.................................. 1
Introduction................................................................................ 1
The Problem ............................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem............................................ 2
Importance of the Problem ..;.................................. 2
D efinition of Terms.............................................................. 7
Traditional method............................................................ 7
Teacher-Counselor-Advisor......................................... 8
Teacher.................................................................................. 9
Counselor......................... 9
Advisor................................................................................... 10
D iscu ssio n a l................................'.................................. 10
Limi t a t io ns of t he S tuay................................................. 11
Organization................................................................................ 15
Plan of O rganization..................................................... 15
II REV IE.V OF THE LITERATURE...................................................... 16
The Literature Pertaining to Research Evalu­
ating Group Achievement.................................................... IS
Summary of This Part of the L iter a tu r e.... 20
The Literature Pertaining to Research Evalu­
ating Individual Student Gain in Achievement
When Group Work Was Used................................................. 20
Summary of This Part of the Literature
Reviewed..................................................................................... 25
The Literature Pertaining to Research Evalu­
ating "Student-centered" Methods ................... 25
Summary of This Part of the Literature
Reviewed..................................................................................... 52
TABLE OF CONTENT - Continued
CHAPTER PAGE
III METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY.......................... 33
Selection of Cases Used in the Study..................... 34
Summary of Procedures Tor Selection oi'
Cases for the Study........................................................... 36
Selection of Instructors for the S tu d y .. 37
Summary of Selection of Instructors for the
Study............................................................................................... 40
Procedures for Measuring Outcomes of the Two
Methods of Teaching................................... 41
Measurements of Quantitative R esu lts................ 41
Measurement of Improvement in Written
Communication...................................................................... 42
Measurement of Improvement in Oral Com­
munication............................................................................. 45
Objective Measurement of Improvement in
the Four Facets of Communication (speak­
ing, w riting, reading, lis te n in g ..................... 47
Summary of Measurements for Quantitative
R esults............................................................................................... 48
Measurements for Q ualitative R esu lts..................... 49
Administration and Use of the Sociometric
Ques tionnair.e......................................................................... 49
Administration and Use of the Student Opin-
rionairo and the i'eacher Evaluation.......................... 50
Summary of Measurements for Q ualitative
R esu lts............................................................................................... 51
Procedures for Analyzing the Data............................. 52
Procedures Used in Analyzing the Quantita­
tive Data......................... 53
Summary of S ta tis tic a l Procedures................... 57
fAPLS OP CONTENT - Continued
NAPl'ER PAGE
Procedures Used in Analyzing the Q ualita­
tive Date.................................................................................... 58
Summary of Procedures for Analyzing the
Data............................................................................... 61
Procedures Involved in the Two Toaching
Me thod3 ................................................................................................62
The Class Discussion Groups......................... 63
The Instructor, HisH oles and Procedures. .. 65
Summary of Procedure.............................................................. 67
IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 0? THE QUANTITATIVE
DATA............................................................................................................ 69
Comparison of the Groups on the Basis of
Standardized Test Scores.................................................... 70
Analysis of Q uantitative Data for Gain in
Achievement of Communication S k ills ........................ 75
Quantitative Achievement Data for Speakinp. 74
Quantitative Achievement Data for Vribinp;.. 61
Quantitative Achievement Data For the Four
S k ills (Objective Examination.................................. 86
Summary.........................................................'.................. 91
V ANALYSIS OP QUALITATIVE DATA.............................................. 93
Analysis of Student Comments in Response to
Questions on the Student O pinionaire. ......................100
Analysis of Student Responses to Teacher
Evaluation I terns........................................................................ 105
Summary........................1...................................................................... 112
VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH.......................................................................... 114
The Problem..................................................................................... 114
UANLE OF CONTENT - Continued
u'iAPTER PAGE
The Procedure................................................................................ 115
Conclusions and Im plications .................... 121
LJTENATURE CITED.................................................................................................... 125
APPENDICES:
A - TAi-LES OF HAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS.................................... 130
D - TESTS, SCHEDULES, AND QUESTIONNAIRES.................................. 139
C - DISCUSSICNAL TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES................................149
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Theories and philosophies relatin g to teaching methods
at a ll levels have been proposed by educators and others
expressing an in terest in education. Innumerable a rticles
relating to educational outcomes, educational procedures, and
educational objectives have come from the presses. Much
criticism has been leveled at the more recently introduced
methods of teaching, curricula, and educational o b jectives.
At the same time there has been abundant criticism of tradi­
tional methods, curricula, and ob jectives. Studies have been
conducted; experiments have been carried out; and many methods
have been tried in conscientious attempts to throw some light
on some facets of the to ta l problem of education. Method of
instruction has been pitted against method of instruction;
teacher attitude against teacher attitude; course content
against course content; oourse objectives against course ob­
jectives; p o litic a l philosophies (atmospheres) against p o liti­
cal philosophies. Each has added some part of a cubit to the
whole struoture of an improved educational system. None,
however, can be shown to be the panacea per se for a ll i l l s ,
in a ll places, for a ll things, in a ll tim es. It is with this
lim itation that this study, too, has been conducted.
1